Variable redefined in inner scope in OnlTools/Jevp/StJevpBuilders/fttBuilder.cxx

[plexoos]

Describe the bug

In OnlTools/Jevp/StJevpBuilders/fttBuilder.cxx variables ix0 and ix1 are redefined inside an if statement, the assigned values do not change the variables defined in the outer scope:

https://github.com/star-bnl/star-sw/blob/e48dc9d0e7bbb7f84776bba64573401ee4dd8277/OnlTools/Jevp/StJevpBuilders/fttBuilder.cxx#L438-L446

A similar pattern can be seen for iy0 and iy1 variables:

https://github.com/star-bnl/star-sw/blob/e48dc9d0e7bbb7f84776bba64573401ee4dd8277/OnlTools/Jevp/StJevpBuilders/fttBuilder.cxx#L458-L466

To Reproduce

Compile a trivial program:

#include <iostream>

int main ()
{
    int ix0 = 1;

    { int ix0 = 2; }
    std::cout << ix0 << "\n";

    { ix0 = 3; }
    std::cout << ix0 << "\n";
}

Expected behavior

It appears the authors intended to modify the values of the variables inside the if statement

[plexoos]

@jml985 git blame shows that you were the last one who touched these lines. Any comment from you?

[jml985]

Yeah its obviously bug, but not critical for anything. Its on my list to fix

[jml985]

And its "blamed" on me because I do all the commits for the production Jevp stuff, not necessarily because I changed the code.

[fgeurts]

Hi @jdbrice and @jml985 , Could you let me know if this issue has been resolved?

[jml985]

Probably not resolved, but I did comment out the code to get rid of the compile warnings and make a pull request. I'm not sure who the maintainer of this code is now, if there is one. It certainly appears as if the author intended to modify the indexes for this portion of the detector and screwed up redefining the variables, however, the code has been in use for several years so presumably it doesn't matter. The worst case scenario is that the online plots show the data shifted by a bin, but I'm not even sure that this code is relevant as it might have been for a protype version of the detector.

[sunxuhit]

Hi Frank, this is certainly beyond my knowledge. Probably Daniel or David should have a look.

[fgeurts]

Thanks Xu for having looked into this. Sent from my iPhoneOn Mar 25, 2024, at 9:01 PM, Xu Sun @.***> wrote: Hi Frank, this is certainly beyond my knowledge. Probably Daniel or David should have a look.

—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>